Forum Post: OWS is its own worst enemy and is doomed to fail
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 1, 2011, 12:11 p.m. EST by Indepat
(924)
from Minneola, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
First off, I am not a troll, and I support this movement, for now. And I agree with the original issue, that we must get the money out of Washington, that we must take our government back. I am with the 99% against the 1%, but as long as this movement remains formless, unorganized, leaderless, with no focus, no vision, no strategy to speak of, it is doomed and will not succeed. And as long as it continues to lean to the left it will open its self to a takeover by the Democratic, liberal machine. It’s already starting to happen. You must remember, or realize, Democrats, like Republicans are part of the problem. Let them take this over, like the republicans have taken over the Tea Party and this thing will be over before it has begun.
For all those that support this formless, leaderless crap, you are part of the problem, and will cause this thing to fail.
For all those that agree with me, then take a stand and do something about it. Because this might be our last chance to force real change in what just might be the most important issue of our time.
If we fail, if Washington continues to work only for narrow special interests and the 1%, at the rest of our expense, as this nations expense, this nation will not persevere.
My single goal with these posts is to keep them at the top, if you agree with me, then please help me keep all 12 at the top of this forum. If you don’t agree, then go off and continue to be part of the problem.
I agree, we MUST get money out of politics with a constitutional amendment first or the structural changes needed to fix the economy will be impossible because the ruling plutarchy will not let it happen. I suggest asking the politicians to sign Grover Norquist style pledge: Pledge to support the campaign finance reform amendment or you will not get our votes!
Someone in one of these posts says that we can propose an amendment to the constitution, and that that might be our best strategy. Not sure if it is, haven't had time to look into it, but it sounds like it's work a look.
http://articlevconvention.org/showthread.php?3-Letter-to-your-Representatives
ows is a bringing the economic and political grievances of the american people into the light of day. its getting people to seriously discuss these issues and it seems to be working fine.
parties and politicians will most probably form and implement the most practical ideas kicked around by the movement. be patient, be aware, wait and see
I agree with protesting for the purpose of working with government and through government to affect positive change. I do not support Direct Democracy or any form of anarchy for our government. But that is what OWS GA wants. We need to move beyond the OWS GA.
the revolutionary leaders that founded our nation would disagree with you
"founding" a nation, is different than building and maintaining a nation.
Just curious, what do you think are the most practical ideas being kicked around, that are worthwhile and realistic?
separating the big money government link and stopping the meddling in the affairs of other countries, especially militarily. when i grew up in the 60's i couldn't understand why we supported dictators. have you read anything by noam chomsky?
I think we can end money in government with serious and strict campaign finance reform, like publicly funded elections. There already is a bill for this, of course the BIG money usually kills these things. Maybe this time will be different.
http://fairelectionsnow.org/take-action
I have not read Noam Chomsky. But I have heard of him. But, like I said, I do not support anarchy. I support protesting. I support making change working through the government. And I believe in keeping our Representative democracy.
i'm hesitant to trust anything crafted in washington by our most honorable elected representatives. but campaign financing and an end to lobbying i think is also necessary. i would be interested in seeing some form of direct democracy with voting over the internet, but of course there's the security issue.
here's a link to a talk chomsky gave to oregon u. last spring before ows started: http://youtu.be/iebK7VVDayY
nice talking to someone who is thinking.
I will save this youtube to watch later. Its a long one. In the mean time, can you tell me a little about what you like about Chomsky.
I think many of our politicians are well intended, but have simply become victims of a corrupted distorted political system polluted with money that has run amok! I think there are many things we can change, such as this, that will have a meaningful positive impact for our country. Without up-ending our Representative form of governemnt.
to put it bluntly, i like chomsky's honesty and depth of research.
i think many of our politicians want to make big money in washington, only a few really care about the everyday person.
The little I have seen and read about him, I can appreciate his intelligence and thought out opinions. But I cannot get past the anarchy philosophy.
I know it seems like our government doesn't care sometimes. Thats because the money talks too loudly in our government. But I believe in the fundamental goodness in people.
Check this out. Someone sent this to me just a few minutes ago. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/01/citizens-united-constitutional-amendment_n_1069596.html
Reason to hope! If this happens, Campaign Reform can't be too far behind! And then all things are possible. Without anarchy. And without up-ending our Representative Republic.
That first step was great, but now it's time to take the next step. and talking is part of that first step, but talking won't actually get results.
No, parties and politicians don't care about what's practical, they only care about serving the narrow special interest that pay for their elections, that keep them in power.
They will take over this movement and use it to maintain the status quo.
that is a danger. i had new parties and politicians in mind even though i dislike parties and politicians very much.
That's not a bad idea, and I think what eventually should happen, but until the system is fixed, it won't matter, because the system corrupts.
you are correct
Looks like OWS got Bank of America to drop it's planned $5 debit card charge. WINNING!
Big deal. The Banks are not the problem, hell Wall Street isn't even the problem. Washington, and the fact that they have been completely purchased is the problem. $5 fee. Big figan deal. I'm sure the 1% is quaking in their boots.
[Removed]
People were saying the same thing a month ago, yet here is OWS growing and even expanding worldwide. Not even 50 days yet, and OWS methods and terminology are becoming household words.
What OWS understands that you, with all due respect, Indepat, may not have considered, is that the point of a protest is not to force or even persuade anyone to do this or stop doing that. It is to draw public attention and support to one or more issues. OWS is succeeding brilliantly at doing that and shows no signs of fading away. Winter might cramp OWS' style, but as we speak OccupyOakland is carrying on. and they don't have to worry about winter. The OWS method works.
The leaderless model immunizes the movement from the weaknesses of individual personalities who would draw public attention otherwise. Witness what is happening to Herman Cain as we speak.
I'm willing to bet a day's pay that somebody behind the scenes came up with this model for OWS, and they should get the Nobel Peace Prize some day--I'm dead serious--if their identity is ever revealed.
yeah and some lunatic fringe blew up the port in Oakland for no good reason. This thing is all over the place, and make no sense.
It's an anarchistic model, and therefore doomed to fail.
Way to go OWS. Great job, at achieving nothing.
Oakland has a history of that sort of thing. Nobody was surprised by it. Most understand that these were not part of the Occupy group. The cops recognized the usual suspects in those incidents.
Yes, worst enemy I tell you
Worst enemy
Worst enemy
worst enemy
Worst enemy
Worst enemy
worst enemy
We need to push for a constitutional amendment to fully fund all federal campaigns and remove all chances for private and organizational funds to reach campaigns. No idea how this could work but there has to be a way. We need to get the money out of politics. In my opinion this should be the one and only item on OWS's bull horn before the bull horn becomes a whisper.
Constitutional amendment might be the way to go.
And yes, this is the root cause, the single problem we should be focusing on.
You're spot on! I'd further add that the attention span is made short by establishment-controlled junk-media, who effectively controls the majority opinion.
http://www.google.com/trends?q=occupy&ctab=0&geo=all&date=mtd&sort=0
It's hugely important to focus the energy of the movement, before it gets too defocused on multiple issues.
I think the first focus should be on informing the 99%, because it's only a fraction of the 99% that really understand what's going on. The majority of the 99% is still under the spell
http://occupywallst.org/forum/break-the-spell-turn-off-the-news-how-to-tell-your/
Nothing in your post I don't agree with. Yes, need to focus, and yes the first thing leadership should do is to come up with a single message, a single vision, and they must control the message, and it should be to inform the rest of the 99%.
Yes, the media is a tool in the arsenal of the ruling elite, one of many, whose sole purpose is to divide and distract.
very much agree with all of that, come be a part of useful organization on the wiki.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPR3GlpQQJA
I have been active here since the very beginning, and since the very beginning I have been trying to make some core points. These points clearly have not been digested or fully understood by the mob, and so I'm going to try to make a further attempt here again.
For these reasons, I beg of you to please immediately join me on the wiki. We need to have all of these details and all of these ideas put together in an organized fashion, rather than posted in a long scrawl which will never be read.
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/THE_99%25_POLITICAL_PARTY
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.followthemoney.org/?gclid=CMbY87bB-qsCFUPt7Qod9HE8mQ
http://maplight.org/us-congress/guide/data/money?9gtype=search&9gkw=list%20of%20campaign%20donations&9gad=6213192521.1&9gag=1786513361&gclid=CP61oYbB-qsCFQFZ7AodcTF0jw
http://www.opensecrets.org/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/our-new-wiki/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/non-violence-evolution-by-paradigm-shift/
Here is the reason OWS will not fail http://www.theawl.com/2011/10/the-livestream-ended-how-i-got-off-my-computer-and-into-the-streets-at-occupy-oakland
Here is why OWS is a catalyst for change the-livestream-ended-how-i-got-off-my-computer-and-into-the-streets-at-occupy-oakland
Listen, protests are all well and good, and yes it achieves awareness, but awareness alone doesn't change a damn thing. You need leadership, and organization for that.
If I had a million dollars, I'd be willing to bet that one of two things will happen, either OWS will eventually fizzle out or will be co-opted by the democratic party. In fact, this has already started to happen.
Most Americans, actually most people in general, have a very short attention span... ...unfortunately that's OWS's biggest enemy because with every day that passes OWS looses the attention span of more people!
Maybe, but I think not likely. Tea Partygoers showed up for the free food and fun, then returned to their comfy nice homes to watch Fox News. OWS is camping out in tents. They're serious.
Yes, that's why it has to turn into something more, or it will wither get taken over, like the tea party, or people will lose interest. Both will end OWS
Conservatives conserve civilization. Liberals expand civilization. Socialists help people. Libertarians help themselves.
what makes this a liberal agenda ?
The original issue, the reason this all started and the movement it's self is not liberal. But this thing is starting to lean left, and the liberal/Democratic machine now views this as ripe for a hostile take over. Not sure if this is the proverbial canary in the coal mind, but when Moveon.org is throwing all it's weight behind you, you should be wary.
vigilant regardless
I 100% agree that the major issue is getting money out of Washington and taking the government back. Technically I'm in that 1% who makes and is worth a certain amount, but I have just as much influence on politics as anyone who is able to vote. The issue isn't the 1%, it's the money in politics that skew lawmakers decisions to benefit a few.
Are you really in that 1%? Good for you. I don't actually view the 1% as just the wealthiest 1%, I view the so called 1%, as the people the people who actually purchase influence, in that case, lobbying firms and other special interest who do not have an incredible net worth also ft into that 1%.
You see, someone at the top needs to define what the 1% actually is, because like you state, it's not just the wealthiest 1%. It's the people who purchase direct influence over our government.
I feel you hit that spot on. I honestly don't feel i should be categorized in the 1% based upon how much I make and how much I am worth. If the 1% is redefined as those that directly influence government (as it should be), that number will fall from 1% to 0.1%
You might be right. I don't feel that this is a Wall Street issue either. Business and industries and people will act in their own best interest. It's human nature and makes business sense.
But our government on the other hand, should work for what's in our best interest, for what's in our best national interest. It does not do this. They are the problem.
They had access to the national press, but they will not listen to reason.
They were given the best direction but few signed on and others ignored it.
I will continue on my own but nothing will come of federal reserve counterfeiting, until it is brought before the public as a political agenda so that it can be explained, scrutinized, and ridiculed.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-objective-1-fractional-reserve-lending-is-a-cr
so sad.
sew said
So you hate political parties (as do I), but you want organized leadership for OWS? Organized leadership will create exactly what you don't want--a political party....
No it won't. Organization exists everywhere, at work, at home, in school, on my sons little league baseball team, all non partisan organizations. Getting everyone to pull in the same direction, to be a team, etc... is not a bad thing.
If we don't find these things soon, the Democratic party will supply the leadership, and then it will actually turn into a party.
,Impeach Congress,The Supreme Court,abolish the federal reserve,and IRS,Seize the assets of Rothschild,Rockefeller,Bush1,2 with charges of treason,crimes against humanity war profiteering and various other charges of torture and mass murder..Distribute the 500 trillion dollars of hoarded wealth to all people in the world,the ones these transnationals stole from for generations..
You are obviously part of the problem. Whether this is by choice or accidental, I can;t tell by your ranting post.
thats exactly what happens when a social movement takes up a specific agenda.
what happens?
derision, dumbass
(that was intentional : )
You mean division, DA? or do you mean mockery?
i meant what i said
Thanks for helping me out with my original goal.
(the first person who proposed a concrete political agenda received derision from you)
(i am not in the habit of clarifying the already apparent, but i took pity on you there)
Of course this forum will not allow my original idea to work. I just might put these out there day by day with a slightly different title.
Just looking to keep tabs on this thing.
same thing
back to the top
again
And again
And again.
i think you are incorrect in your premise that this must be a political movement with leadership. social experiments like this go on to influence decisions being made in all spheres.
its a matter of influence and change of ethos, not direct policy-making. an influence on policy-making would thereby be only one of a great number of influences this movement has the possibility to exert.
i tend to be sympathetic toward ows for the above reason. if i saw things like you, woulda thrown in the towel by now.
Screw experiments. This is too damn important to experiment with.
This formless, leaderless, doesn't work, if it did we would have tried it and succeeded at it at some point in our history. But we haven't. Why? Because it's a ridiculous notion.
And please, if you believe this free form stuff can work, by all means, throw in the towel. This sort of stuff can only hurt this movement.
worked with civil rights, worked with anti-slavery, worked with women's rights, the list goes on. if you dont think a leaderless, nonviolent social experiment has value, start your own movement
lets see if you get any followers : )
Nonviolence is both honorable and generally the smart thing to do when attempting something of this nature, and protests do have their place in the greater scheme of things. However, we shouldn't limit ourselves to only protesting and living in the parks. Here's why: our complaint about government is that it's too pay-to-play? Guess what? We have donations. We can pay now, not individually but as an aggregate, and since we can pay we can play. We can put our people in primaries across the country this election cycle, and we'll see how willing DC is to listen to us when we have men among them...
it is my feeling that if you have a concrete political agenda, you will lose support, limit the scope of your influence, and cause more harm than good.
see "tea party"
Here's the thing; the civil rights protesters had a very clear, very tangible political agenda with a single overall goal- passage and enforcement of federal laws ensuring that basic civil rights were not affected by skin color and the reversal of "separate but equal" as per Plessy. The abolitionists were all over the place as a movement, and there was a group of Garrisonians who went apolitical. It took an incredibly deep regional divide, an act of terrorism, and an astronomically ugly civil war to fix it. Women's rights groups, temperance groups, and anti-Prohibition groups were all nonviolent but highly organized and more than willing to get political when necessary.
I don't want us to splinter but I'd be willing to lose 5-10% of the movement if the remaining 90-95% were unified, invested, active, and willing to pursue any and all legally allowed avenues for change and redress of grievances. The Tea Party (at least the one involved in the 2008 and 2010 elections) is proof that a sufficiently unified group of angry people can have an outsize effect on the national debate: what amounts to a corporate Astroturf movement that lived on fear and lies was able to take over the national debate, seize the House, and clog up the legislative process like nothing I've ever had the misfortune of running across in my (admittedly short) life.
yuck. well you're safe from losing me. i'm just an interested observer : )
take it easy
At this point I'm observing from my computer because I'm currently in my freshman year at MIT, and I'm so busy trying to keep up with coursework that I don't have the time to actually go down to a protest and get involved. I really wish I did; I'm just getting frustrated by the fact that we can't seem to get anything done. Like I said, social experiments are nice when times are good, but the stakes are high enough right now (especially given that 2012 is an election year) that we should be aggressively pursuing every opportunity we can get even if it means straying from philosophical purity.
I'm not really a big fan of any ideology that can't feasibly be implemented (or whose proponents clam up and imply that everything will work itself out when they're asked about how they would implement their plans) and I honestly don't know how an ideology that specifically disallows political participation is necessarily going to do much good. At the end of the day, two groups of people set economic policy in this country: federal officials and corporate honchos. The latter is largely immune to the wrath (and therefore the needs) of the people; the former isn't.
Large nonviolent protests only work because ordinary voters either empathize with protesters or are so turned off by state reaction to protests that they vote out those responsible for the scenes they see on their TVs and/or computers. That's starting to happen now; national polls show support for OWS generally either just above or just below the 50% mark, which means that people are listening.
Listening to what, though? We've aroused the empathy of many American voters, but to what end? With the civil rights movement the nature of the protesters' complaints was quite concrete and rather patently obvious: African-Americans have the same stake in, and right to, the American dream as whites did. Since many of the laws and policies being protested were explicitly and only designed to bar blacks from equal participation, voters went to the polls and wrote to their elected officials: "Either you'll nullify these laws or we'll find someone else who will."
OWS is not that simple right now; people are backing us with completely opposite policy ends in mind: "I support OWS because we need to separate government from business through deregulation!" and "I support OWS because big business has no right to exist and we need to nationlaize and/or abolish it!" may be able to coexist in the parks but not at the polls, and if OWS fails to shift public opinion and/or election outcomes enough to make a difference then we haven't amounted to much. There is enough here that everyone believes in (campaign finance and lobbying reform along with some form of restructuring of the Fed) that we should define that as our goal and use the elections as a platform to force the issue.
"This formless, leaderless, doesn't work..."
Oh, really? What's not working about OWS?
Everything. There is no movement, no strategy. all there is is talk, and sitting around. This thing is doomed to fail. Protests have there part, but they are only a single weapon in our arsenal. we need to do more, and more will never happen so long as we remain disorganized.
show me a single example where disorganization prevails over organized.
All I've seen is continuous, growing support, and people taking the processes of direct democracy and consensus to their hometowns, as I am doing. In my opinion, as long as it is growing, it is working.
Talk is fine, but action is what we actually need, and as long as this thing remains in this form, then talk is all we'll ever have. No action, no results. so I disagree, it is not working. It's also ripe for a take over my the democratic party. Not sure if it's a canary in the coal mind, but moveon.org is pushing heavy for this movement. They are just the beginning.
You don't know what it will become as long as it's growing in a positive fashion, keeping with the spirit of direct democracy and consensus. Once everyone in the country knows about it, then we can talk about what it's not doing. I can tell you that the GA I attend has made concrete plans to combat fracking/criminalize limited liability corporations in our hometowns. We are going to push it to the state level after that.
direct democracy and consensus, AKA anarchy, is a terrible idea. It doesn't work, not on this level at least.
I wasn't talking about NATO. I was talking about the Egyptians. I didn't see the military helping. They just stood around and waited for things to unfold. But that's beside the point. The Egyptian people came to an action plan through the process of direct democracy. So did the indignados.
Who actually got Mubarek to step down? It wasn't the protesters. First the military showed support, by allowing the protests to occur, then the head of the military asked Mubarek to step down, which he did willingly or not, who actually knows, then the military took over, and now they are back in the square, accept now, the Egyptian military isn't having any.
By the way, there was a single person who started and pushed the movement along. It wasn't leaderless.
Yes, they were organized, but they were leaderless. It seems to contradict your assertion that it doesn't work.
NATO is not leaderless. In fact, they were coordinating everything. And it now looks more and more like the Egyptian military helped out their rebellion only so they could take control themselves.
I agree with you Indepat.
Do you think it is necessary to change the method of decision making in order to make any progress? If so, how would this be accomplished?
Major decisions could be thrown out there for voting purposes, and ideas, strategies could be bubbled up from these sort of things. But there needs to be some sort of organization and leadership up the top to compile these things and to make actual decisions and to formulate strategy and the keep everyone moving in the right direction. This thing needs a PR dept. Logistics, a single focus, vision etc...
What? You're already saying direct democracy doesn't work? It has spawned a worldwide movement and is still gaining support. It has toppled regimes overseas and brought many oppressed people together under one banner. Seems it's working pretty well to me.
When has it ever? The movements that toppled regimes were not leaderless? who was leaderless, disorganized? The Libyan rebels, or maybe you're referring to NATO?
TIME will tell if this movement is REAL or IMAGINED. As soon as the presidential race starts, as soon as the first debate with Obama against his republican contender, THEN we will know if this is a democratic ruse. UNTIL THEN, shut the fuck up.
I don't much care if it is a ruse. Though I don't think it is. And I don't much care what party wants to take up these issues - I'll be happy that someone is taking them up: Campaign Finance Reform, Financial Regulation, Corporate Personhood.
This movement won't take up these issues because this movement has no intention of working with government or through government to affect these changes. This movement has an entirely different agenda.
Can you clarify? What agenda? I thought the agenda of getting the money out of politics was the agenda... I am interested but you lost me...
Getting money out of politics should be the agenda. A big one on the top of the list anyway, based on most people I've talked with.
The problem is that the people that started this movement are interested in eliminating our Representative Democracy in favor of Direct Democracy and some form of anarchy. Most I think are proposing Anarcho-Syndicalism. I had to Wiki those things! I had no idea what any of that stuff meant.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11293836/1/meet-the-man-behind-occupy-wall-street.html
The anarchists are taking advantage of every social/political/financial problem in our country to get attention and gain support for their agenda. This is why there are no "official" demands, even though we all know what the demands and problems are. The anarchists have no intention of ever addressing these demands. Because they do not believe in working with or through government to affect positive change.
We need to gather support and move beyond the anarchists to make the change we want to see. Like Campaing Finance Reform, Financial Regulations, Corporate Personhood etc.
It's real, it's just doomed to fail. It's not a Democratic ruse yet, but it will so long as morons like you continue to just talk instead of act.
Nice move there at the end. You're real bright.
I am the furthest thing from a moron. I myself was making the same claim as you are a week ago. The problem is we have no facts yet to back it up. So it will only make the statement seem less credible later when we need people to believe us. Like "boy who cried wolf"... Let's get facts and present them.
Well if that's the case, then at least try and sound like it.
Back Atcha
I'm not the one cursing you out, or telling you to just shut the F up am I.
you're right.